Roads: South West

Adrian Sanders: To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment he has made of the adequacy of central Government funding for road improvements in each local authority area in the South West region.

Paul Clark: Local major schemes, including road improvements, costing over £5 million need to be identified by the respective region for funding within its regional funding allocation. This funding is based on a formula which reflects the population of the specific region.
	In addition to funds for specific major schemes, the Department for Transport also allocates integrated transport block and highways maintenance funding to local transport authorities for general. capital investment in transport for schemes costing under £5 million. This funding is not ring-fenced and local authorities have discretion to spend their allocations in line with their priorities.

Legal Advice and Assistance: Travelling People

Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice 
	(1)  pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst of 12 March 2009,  Official Report, column 667W, on legal advice and assistance: travelling people, what the location of each planning application handled by each local authority was; and whether the representation was in relation to  (a) a new planning application,  (b) retrospective planning permission,  (c) planning enforcement and  (d) another matter;
	(2)  what the  (a) type of planning inquiry and  (b) location of each development was in respect of each case in which funding was provided.

Shahid Malik: The Ministry of Justice does not record the locations involved in legal aid applications for representation at planning inquiries as a matter of course. It is possible that by giving details of those locations, the identities of individual legal aid clients would be revealed. As this is personal data, it is not routinely disclosed.
	Applications for exceptional funding for legal representation at planning inquiries usually concern an appeal against a local authority's rejection of an application for planning permission and may also pertain to enforcement. MOJ does not record applications for exceptional funding for planning inquiries by any sub-categories.

Legal Aid: Expenditure

Hugo Swire: To ask the Secretary of State for Justice how much his Department and its predecessor spent on legal aid in  (a) England,  (b) the South West,  (c) Devon and  (d) East Devon constituency in each of the last 10 years.

Shahid Malik: Figures for  (a) and  (b) are only readily available for the last seven years. These are shown in the following table. Figures for  (c) and  (d) could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The data comes from several databases some of which do not go down to the level of detail requested. Manual extraction of the data would take several days.
	
		
			  £ million 
			   England  South West 
			 2001-02 1,628 122 
			 2002-03 1,863 138 
			 2003-04 2,035 146 
			 2004-05 1,978 157 
			 2005-06 1,953 145 
			 2006-07 1,882 135 
			 2007-08 1,929 132 
			  Note:  Small elements of expenditure which cannot be split regionally (e.g. CDS Direct) have been excluded.

Appendicitis

Andrew Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  how many people were treated for a ruptured appendix in each hospital trust in England in the most recent year for which figures are available;
	(2)  how many people were treated for a ruptured appendix in hospital in England in each of the last five years for which figures are available.

Ben Bradshaw: Information on treatment for ruptured appendices, specifically, is not collected centrally.
	However, we can supply figures for finished admission episodes with a primary diagnosis of 'acute appendicitis with generalized peritonitis'. This includes perforation, peritonitis (generalized), and rupture.
	A table containing this data has been placed in the Library.

Hospitals: Infectious Diseases

Bob Spink: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria his Department's Rapid Review Panel uses in judging the suitability of products intended for use in the NHS.

Ann Keen: The Rapid Review Panel (RRP) provides the Department with prompt assessment of new and novel products or protocols designed to reduce healthcare associated infections (HCAI). Prior to submission for assessment by the RRP, a new product or process must fulfil certain criteria, and the application form should contain the following information:
	contact details of the manufacturer;
	product/process name and date of release;
	where the product/process is marketed;
	how it will contribute to reducing HCAIs;
	in what respect it is innovative/new;
	the mechanism of action;
	the in vitro activity of the product;
	evidence of the product's impact on HCAIs;
	references;
	proof of risk and safety assessment; and
	authorization.
	Following initial scrutiny products are reviewed on a case-by-case basis on the information presented by the applicant. The focus of the panel's review is on the on the products clinical effectiveness and its impact in combating healthcare associated infections. Each product submitted may receive one of the following recommendations:
	basic research and development, validation and recent in use evaluations have shown benefits that should be available to national health service bodies to include as appropriate in their cleaning, hygiene or infection control protocols;
	basic research and development has been completed and the product may have potential value; in use evaluations/trials are now needed in an NHS clinical setting;
	a potentially useful new concept but insufficiently validated; more research and development is required before it is ready for evaluation in practice;
	not a significant improvement on equipment/materials/products already available which claim to contribute to reducing health care associated infection; no further consideration needed;
	unlikely to contribute to the reduction of health care associated infection; no further consideration needed;
	insufficient clarity/evidence presented to enable full review of the product;
	an already well established product that does not merit further consideration by the panel; or
	the product is not sufficiently related to infection control procedures to merit consideration by the panel.
	These recommendations are available on the Health Protection Agency website at:
	www.hpa.org.uk/webw/HPAweb&HPAwebStandard/HPAweb_C/1200055729551?p=1158313434380

Members: Correspondence

Graham Brady: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State plans to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West of 8 September 2008.

Dawn Primarolo: A reply was issued to the hon. Member on 7 October 2008.

NHS: Assets

Andrew Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health 
	(1)  how much land each NHS organisation indicated in its estates return it expected to have available for disposal in  (a) 2008-09,  (b) 2009-10 and  (c) 2010-11;
	(2)  what information each NHS organisation submitted in its estates return on its anticipated receipts from net land and property disposal in 2007-08.

Ben Bradshaw: The information requested has been placed in the Library.
	This information was provided by national health service trusts through the annual Estates Returns Information Collection (ERIC) 2007-08 returns. The data is correct as at 31 March 2008. There is a possibility that the situation has changed since then.
	The information is collected on a compulsory basis from NHS trusts, except foundation trusts who can provide the data on a non-compulsory basis if they wish. The information has been supplied by the NHS and has not been amended centrally. The accuracy and completeness of the information is the responsibility of the provider organisation.

NHS: Assets

Andrew Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much each NHS organisation received in net land and property disposal receipts in each year since 2002-03, according to data from estates return information collection (ERIC) returns; and what the ERIC code for each organisation was in each year.

Ben Bradshaw: The information is not available in the format requested.
	Since 2004-05, the Department has collected annual data from national health service trusts on the amount received in land and property disposal receipts within the reporting year, through the Estates Returns Information Collection (ERIC). The available data for each year since 2004-05 has been placed in the Library.
	The information is collected on a compulsory basis from NHS trusts in England, including Foundation trusts. The information has been supplied by the NHS and has not been amended centrally. The accuracy and completeness of the information is the responsibility of the provider organisation.

Sexually Transmitted Diseases

Andrew Lansley: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were admitted to hospital for the treatment of sexually transmitted infections  (a) in each region in each year since 1997-98 and  (b) in each primary care trust area in the last year for which figures are available.

Dawn Primarolo: We are unable to provide a breakdown by primary care trust of residence due to the sensitivity of the data. The count of admissions to hospital for sexually transmitted infections (STIs) broken down by strategic health authority of residence for 1997-98 to 2007-08 is provided in the following table. These data only include admissions to hospital and do not include attendances at genito-urinary medicine clinics, where the majority of STIs are detected and treated.
	
		
			  Number of admissions to hospital for sexually transmitted infections broken down by strategic health authority (SHA) of residence for 1997-98 to 2007-08, activity in English NHS Hospitals and English NHS commissioned activity in the independent sector 
			   Current  s trategic HA of residence  2007-08  2006-07  2005-06  2004-05  2003-04  2002-03  2001-02  2000-01  1999-2000  1998-99  1997-98 
			  Total 2,649 2,620 2,818 2,678 2,741 2,744 2,840 3,193 3,447 3,297 3,527 
			  
			 Q01 Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire Strategic HA — — 104 77 65 64 64 72 53 79 90 
			 Q02 Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Strategic HA — — 59 61 54 73 55 68 71 60 50 
			 Q03 Essex Strategic HA — — 58 55 89 35 36 36 39 63 47 
			 Q04 North West London Strategic HA — — 107 95 105 96 57 63 72 72 121 
			 Q05 North Central London Strategic HA — — 120 79 97 88 48 61 73 60 59 
			 Q06 North East London Strategic HA — — 112 108 146 58 12 132 190 134 35 
			 Q07 South East London Strategic HA — — 111 125 105 115 73 101 82 88 84 
			 Q08 South West London Strategic HA — — 71 74 62 63 64 45 49 58 70 
			 Q09 Northumberland, Tyne and Wear Strategic HA — — 113 100 86 86 92 121 128 158 131 
			 Q10 County Durham and Tees Valley Strategic HA — — 76 73 73 91 74 50 58 122 117 
			 Q11 North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire Strategic HA — — 56 90 105 67 88 89 115 135 95 
			 Q12 West Yorkshire Strategic HA — — 122 123 82 76 117 169 161 149 224 
			 Q13 Cumbria and Lancashire Strategic HA — — 130 137 118 118 104 128 174 214 294 
			 Q14 Greater Manchester Strategic HA — — 158 177 166 128 173 301 414 311 342 
			 Q15 Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic HA — — 109 89 146 99 127 134 119 78 79 
			 Q16 Thames Valley Strategic HA — — 98 68 51 58 51 41 36 23 23 
			 Q17 Hampshire and Isle of Wight Strategic HA — — 40 33 55 59 70 63 78 75 57 
			 Q18 Kent and Medway Strategic HA — — 53 58 40 35 45 90 122 93 117 
			 Q19 Surrey and Sussex Strategic HA — — 121 168 129 115 114 114 98 117 124 
			 Q20 Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire Strategic HA — — 83 82 96 87 101 62 81 30 36 
			 Q21 South West Peninsula Strategic HA — — 161 95 122 126 125 90 79 16 6 
			 Q22 Dorset and Somerset Strategic HA — — 31 36 32 34 27 42 41 41 22 
			 Q23 South Yorkshire Strategic HA — — 82 73 85 61 46 58 55 12 3 
			 Q24 Trent Strategic HA — — 119 100 118 143 124 106 114 61 75 
			 Q25 Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland Strategic HA — — 115 100 51 21 35 21 42 45 34 
			 Q26 Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic HA — — 53 55 57 38 33 20 18 35 33 
			 Q27 Birmingham and the Black Country Strategic HA — — 103 90 79 117 106 128 94 69 92 
			 Q28 West Midlands South Strategic HA — — 65 54 41 54 55 77 82 49 63 
			 Q30 North East SHA 167 160 — — — — — — — — — 
			 Q31 North West SHA 377 367 — — — — — — — — — 
			 Q32 Yorkshire and the Humber 265 265 — — — — — — — — — 
			 Q33 East Midlands SHA 243 169 — — — — — — — — — 
			 Q34 West Midlands SHA 194 204 — — — — — — — — — 
			 Q35 East of England SHA 200 190 — — — — — — — — — 
			 Q36 London SHA 492 458 — — — — — — — — — 
			 Q37 South East Coast SHA 174 141 — — — — — — — — — 
			 Q38 South Central SHA 89 85 — — — — — — — — — 
			 Q39 South West SHA 245 218 — — — — — — — — — 
			  Other and Unknown SHAs 203 363 188 203 286 539 724 711 709 850 1,004 
			  Notes:  Finished admission episodes A finished admission episode is the first period of in-patient care under one consultant within one health care provider. Finished admission episodes are counted against the year in which the admission episode finishes. Admissions do not represent the number of in-patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.  Primary diagnosis The primary diagnosis is the first of up to 20 (14 from 2002-03 to 2006-07 and seven prior to 2002-03) diagnosis fields in the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data set and provides the main reason why the patient was admitted to hospital. The ICD-10 codes used to identify sexually transmitted infections are as follows: A50: Congenital syphilis A51: Early syphilis A52: Late syphilis A53: Other and unspecified syphilis A54: Gonococcal infection A55: Chlamydial lymphogranuloma (venereum) A56: Other sexually transmitted chlamydial diseases A57: Chancroid A58: Granuloma inguinale A59: Trichomoniasis A60: Anogenital herpesviral (herpes simplex) infection A63: Other predominantly sexually transmitted diseases, not elsewhere classified A64: Unspecified sexually transmitted disease It should be noted that there are other diagnoses that can be transmitted sexually but are not limited to sexually transmission—they have been excluded from this response.  Data quality HES are compiled from data sent by more than 300 NHS trusts and primary care trusts (PCTs) in England. Data is also received from a number of independent sector organisations for activity commissioned by the English NHS. The NHS Information Centre for health and social care liaises closely with these organisations to encourage submission of complete and valid data and seeks to minimise inaccuracies and the effect of missing and invalid data via HES processes. While this brings about improvement over time, some shortcomings remain.  PCT/SHA data quality PCT and SHA data was added to historic data years in the HES database using 2002-03 boundaries, as a one-off exercise in 2004. The quality of the data on PCT of treatment and SHA of treatment is poor in 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99, with over a third of all finished episodes having missing values in these years. Data quality of PCT of GP practice and SHA of general practitioner (GP) practice in 1997-98 and 1998-99 is also poor, with a high proportion missing values where practices changed or ceased to exist. There is less change in completeness of the residence-based fields over time, where the majority of unknown values are due to missing postcodes on birth episodes. Users of time series analysis including these years need to be aware of these issues in their interpretation of the data.  Assessing growth through time HES figures are available from 1989-90 onwards. The quality and coverage of the data have improved over time. These improvements in information submitted by the NHS have been particularly marked in the earlier years and need to be borne in mind when analysing time series. Some of the increase in figures for later years (particularly 2006-07 onwards) may be due to the improvement in the coverage of independent sector activity. Changes in NHS practice also need to be borne in mind when analysing time series. For example, a number of procedures may now be undertaken in out-patient settings and may no longer be accounted for in the HES data. This may account for any reductions in activity over time.  Source: Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), the NHS Information Centre for health and social care.

Trade Credit Insurance Scheme

Gordon Banks: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform what eligibility criteria will apply to assistance under his Department's trade credit insurance scheme; and if he will make a statement.

Ian Pearson: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the Member for Glenrothes (Lindsay Roy)

Business: Government Assistance

Brooks Newmark: To ask the Minister of State, Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform how many businesses in Braintree have received assistance from the  (a) Enterprise Finance Guarantee Scheme,  (b) Capital for Enterprise Fund and  (c) Working Capital Guarantee Scheme; and how much funding has been committed to businesses in Braintree under each scheme.

Ian Pearson: holding answer 26 February 2009
	The Enterprise Finance Guarantee, Capital for Enterprise Fund and the Working Capital Scheme were announced under the Real Help with Finance package on 14 January.
	Since its launch on 14 January, the Enterprise Finance Guarantee has nearly £300 million of eligible applications from over 2,600 firms that have been granted, are being processed or assessed.
	With respect to the £75 million Capital for Enterprise equity scheme, the appointed fund managers are in discussions and conducting due diligence on companies from whom they have received serious proposals seeking a total of around £60 million of investments
	The Working Capital Scheme is not available directly to businesses. The scheme enables participating banks to increase the amount of working capital they can make available to businesses.

Departmental Billing

John Mason: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what percentage of its suppliers his Department has paid within 10 days of receipt of invoice in each of the last five months.

Gillian Merron: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) has paid the following percentage of valid invoices received from UK suppliers within eight days of receipt in the last five months. In normal circumstances it will take two further days for a payment to reach the suppliers bank accounts.
	
		
			   Percentage 
			 November 70.2 
			 December 74.4 
			 January 73.2 
			 February 83.1 
			 March 84.8 
		
	
	The FCO is committed to paying all of it's suppliers as quickly as possible following receipt of a valid invoice, and is giving priority to increasing the percentage of invoices paid within eight working days.

Iran: Sanctions

William Hague: To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which states have reported to the UN Sanctions Committee impediments under their domestic law to the implementation of the assets freeze on designated persons and entities in accordance with UN Security Council Resolutions 1737 of 2006, 1747 of 2007 and 1803 of 2008; and whether the UK has offered assistance to any such state in this regard.

David Miliband: Member states' reports affirming their implementation of the measures contained in UN Security Council resolutions 1737 of 2006, 1747 of 2007 and 1803 of 2008 are publicly available online at:
	http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1737/memberstatesreports.shtml
	The 1737 Iran Sanctions Committee has never found it necessary to investigate any impediments under any member state's domestic law concerning implementation of the assets freezes as a result of these reports.
	The UK works with other states to provide assistance on the implementation of asset freezes under the UN sanctions against Iran through bi-lateral discussions and multilateral groups, such as the EU and the Financial Action Task Force.

Housing Benefit

Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 
	(1)  how many housing benefit recipients were social housing tenants in each of the last three years; and how many were  (a) local authority and  (b) registered social landlord tenants;
	(2)  what percentage of housing benefit recipients were social housing tenants in each of the last three years; what proportion of those were ( a) local authority and  (b) registered social landlord tenants.

Kitty Ussher: The available information is in the following tables.
	
		
			  Number of housing benefit recipients who are social housing tenants in Great Britain—2005 to 2007 
			  As at August each year  Total housing benefit  All social housing tenants  Local authority tenants  Registered social landlord tenants 
			 2005 3,981,020 3,175,470 1,744,810 1,430,660 
			 2006 4,024,280 3,163,280 1,683,830 1,479,450 
			 2007 4,040,940 3,100,350 1,625,050 1,475,290 
		
	
	
		
			  Proportion of housing benefit recipients who are social housing tenants in Great Britain—2005 to 2007 
			  As at August each year  Percentage of housing benefit recipients who are social housing tenants  Percentage of social housing tenants who are local authority tenants  Percentage of social housing tenants who are registered social landlord tenants 
			 2005 79.77 54.95 45.05 
			 2006 78.60 53.23 46.77 
			 2007 76.72 52.42 47.58 
			  Notes: 1. The data refers to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple. 2. Housing benefit figures have been rounded to the nearest ten. Totals may not sum due to rounding. 3. Figures for any non-responding authorities have been estimated. 4. Housing benefit figures exclude any extended payment cases. 5. From February 2007, DWP has been collecting more detailed HB/CTB data electronically from local authorities. Over time this will improve the accuracy, timeliness and level of detail available in the published statistics. However, until the new data have been fully quality assured to National Statistics standards, the most recent summary statistics available are for August 2007.  Source: Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System Quarterly 100 per cent. caseload stock-count taken in August 2005 to August 2007

Cabinet: Glasgow

Dai Davies: To ask the Prime Minister for what reasons the Cabinet met in Glasgow; and what the marginal cost of holding the meeting in Glasgow was.

Gordon Brown: The visit of the Cabinet to Glasgow on 16 April 2009 was one of several ministerial visits across the region; there was a public engagement event with around 230 local people and a formal Cabinet meeting. The cost of the public engagement event and the cabinet meeting was approximately £54,300, excluding VAT. This figure includes the cost of hiring the venue, catering, associated security and delegate management. There are no separate figures for the Cabinet meeting. In addition, Departments and agencies will have incurred costs in terms of travel, staff time and other support. The cost of any security provided by the police is a matter for the relevant police force.

Local Government

Caroline Spelman: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government which councils are pathfinders for new two-tier models of joint working.

John Healey: Four county areas—Buckinghamshire, Dorset, Hertfordshire and Lincolnshire—are currently enhanced two-tier working pathfinders. This includes the following councils:
	
		
			 County area Councils involved 
			 Buckinghamshire Buckinghamshire County Council 
			  Aylesbury Vale District Council 
			  Chiltern District Council 
			  South Bucks District Council 
			  Wycombe District Council 
			   
			 Dorset Dorset County Council 
			  Christchurch Borough Council 
			  East Dorset District Council 
			  North Dorset District Council 
			  Purbeck District Council 
			  West Dorset District Council 
			  Weymouth and Portland Borough Council 
			   
			 Hertfordshire Hertfordshire County Council 
			  Borough of Broxbourne Council 
			  Dacorum Borough Council 
			  East Herts Council 
			  Hertsmere Borough Council 
			  North Hertfordshire District Council 
			  St. Albans City and District Council 
			  Stevenage Borough Council 
			  Three Rivers District Council 
			  Watford Borough Council 
			  Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council 
			 Lincolnshire Lincolnshire County Council 
			  East Lindsey District Council 
			  City of Lincoln Council 
			  North Kesteven District Council 
			  South Holland District Council 
			  South Kesteven District Council 
			  West Lindsey District Council

Non-domestic Rates

Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government how many hereditaments have a rateable value of (a) between £10,000 and £15,000 in each Government Office Region outside London and (b) between £10,000 and £21,500 in London, according to Valuation Office Agency records.

John Healey: The information is as follows:
	
		
			 2005 Rating List as at 31 March 2009 
			  Number of hereditaments over £10,000 or under £21,500  
			 Government office region Under £15,000 Under £21,500 Number of hereditaments 
			 East Midlands Yes No 13,404 
			 East of England Yes No 18,430 
			 London No Yes 59,508 
			 North East Yes No 6,361 
			 North West Yes No 21,175 
			 South East Yes No 27,670 
			 South West Yes No 17,201 
			 Wales Yes No 8,517 
			 West Midlands Yes No 17,031 
			 Yorkshire and the Humber Yes No 15,785

Rented Housing

Grant Shapps: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government what the average length of tenure for a tenant of a housing in the  (a) registered social landlord and  (b) local authority sector was in each year since 1997.

Iain Wright: Estimates of the average length of residence of tenants at their current address in  (a) the registered social landlord sector and  (b) the local authority sector for each year from 1997-98 to 2006-07 are provided in the table. These estimates are based on data from the Survey of English Housing.
	
		
			  Average length of residence at current address, social sector tenants, England, 1997-98 to 2006-07 
			  Years( 1) 
			   Tenure 
			   Local authority  Registered social landlord 
			 1997-98 12.9 8.4 
			 1998-99 13.0 8.4 
			 1999-2000 13.3 8.0 
			 2000-01 13.6 8.7 
			 2001-02 13.3 9.6 
			 2002-03 14.3 9.9 
			 2003-04 13.8 10.2 
			 2004-05 13.4 10.3 
			 2005-06 14.3 10.7 
			 2006-07 13.5 10.7 
			 (1) Years are given in decimal format, for example the 0.9 in 12.9 refers to 9/10 of a year.  Source: Communities and Local Government, Survey of English Housing.

Departmental Disciplinary Proceedings

Paul Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many officials in his Department are suspended; how many are suspended on full pay; for how long each has been suspended; and what the reasons are for any such suspensions.

Huw Irranca-Davies: There are currently four people within the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs who are suspended. Because it is such a small number, we cannot give further details because of the possibility of identifying individuals.
	Suspensions are considered in line with DEFRA's disciplinary policy and procedures. These reflect the central framework set out in the Civil Service Management Code and they are available to all staff via the Department's intranet.

Hill Farming

Tim Farron: To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate his Department has made of the average age of a hill farmer.

Jane Kennedy: The latest information we have available indicates that in 2007 the average age of a farm holder in the Less Favoured Areas (LFAs) in England was 59 years.
	This data is sourced from the 2007 EU Farm Structure Survey.

Equality and Human Rights Commission: Pay

Paul Goodman: To ask the Minister for Women and Equality what the  (a) pay band and  (b) cash equivalent transfer value is of each member of the senior management board at the Commission for Equality and Human Rights; and if she will make a statement.

Maria Eagle: The information asked for under  (a) will be part of the Equality and Human Rights Commission's annual report and accounts for the transition period of October 2007 to March 2008. The Commission intend that the annual report is laid before Parliament before the summer recess.
	The cash equivalent transfer value information  (b) will also appear in the remuneration report section of the annual report and accounts.

Further Education: Overseas Students

Nicholas Soames: To ask the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills how many further educational establishments accepted non-EU students in the last year for which information is available; how many further education establishments were inspected in the latest year for which information is available; and how many failed that inspection.

Si�n Simon: holding answer 5 May 2009
	DIUS does not collect information on the number of further education establishments who accept non-EU students. However, data returned to the Data Service shows that there were 392 FE establishments with non-EU domiciled learners undertaking some form of further education in the 2007-08 academic year. This is based on country of domicile information (the country where the learner has been ordinarily resident for the three years preceding the start of the programme).
	Ofsted data shows that 95 LSC-funded general further education and sixth form colleges were inspected by Ofsted between April 2008 and March 2009. Of these, the published results show that five colleges were graded inadequate for overall effectiveness and are therefore judged to have failed inspection.

Vocational Training

Steve Webb: To ask the Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills how many people have completed training funded by his Department in each month since June 2007; and if he will make a statement.

Si�n Simon: In the 2007-08 academic year 2,960,300 people achieved at least one qualification funded by the Learning and Skills Council. This includes qualifications achieved through study at a Further Education provider, and those achieved through an Apprenticeship or Train to Gain programme.
	Data on the number of people achieving a qualification is only published on an academic year basis. The latest provisional estimate of mid-year performance (1 August to 31 January) for the 2008-09 academic year shows that 49,100 learners completed an apprenticeship, and 152,000 learners achieved a qualification through the Train to Gain programme.

Sure Start Programme: Leicestershire

Andy Reed: To ask the Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families what funding was allocated for SureStart provision in Leicestershire in  (a) 2006-07,  (b) 2007-08,  (c) 2008-09 and  (d) 2009-10.

Beverley Hughes: The SureStart funding allocated to Leicestershire local authority from 2006-07 to 2009-10 is given in the following table.
	
		
			   
			   Revenue  f unding  Capital  f unding  Total  f unding 
			 2006-07 720,223 3,571,042 4,291,265 
			 2007-08 1,641,054 8,621,763 10,262,817 
			 2008-09 9,387,852 7,464,637 16,852,489 
			 2009-10 11,448,975 5,139,063 16,588,038 
			 Total 23,198,104 24,796,505 47,994,609 
		
	
	In 2006-07 and 2007-08 Leicestershire local authority chose to pool its revenue funding in a local area agreement which was paid by the department for Communities and Local Government (CLG, formerly the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, ODPM) as part of the LAA grant revenue. This funding was not ring fenced to SureStart activities; Leicestershire local authority had the freedom to spend the funding pooled in its local area agreement in line with local priorities. Therefore the allocation shown for 2006-07 and 2007-08 contains only pilot funding and money to transform the early years workforce which was the funding paid through the SureStart grant.